I happened upon this video in my stream, and chose to listen to it because it had the word scapegoat and Feminism together (along with Andrea Dworkin, who I have been learning about LATE in my life, as it was not available to me before this time). I have come to understand womyn are the scapegoats of patriarchy. I have come to learn about "patriarchy" , again LATE in life. I knew something was deeply wrong , as no one was able to have a true relationship. I could see how something was 'wrong". I am deeply grateful to hear you womyn talking about what I have discovered, that womyn do not support each other. That most every womyn is living with the patriarch. This system programs the next generation and we do not have a "tribe" to help us make this shift to equality. It keeps getting splintered off, when we make any small progress. Stockholm syndrome is another thing I had come to see applies to womyn in relationships with men. It sucks your soul, your identity, your energy...and then when your own children grow, they also scapegoat mom's, require HER to be an object of service and if she dare speak up for herself, or speak up about how SHE is feeling or needs or wants...they are up in arms and basically blackmail her, with THEIR presence or the grandchildren's presence...to either conform , go back in the box or lose contact..until SHE does conform. AND no one helps HER , not even family, to help keep this connection. I know of many womyn that finally stood up for themselves and then their children ghost them. SHE is expendable!!! So she finally figures out the oppression, as her health declines over decades in patriarchy programming, finds her voice only for her beloved children to NOW do what the system (along with the mother's compliance to the system) taught them, and to oppress the MOM, just as she is healing. And no female friends or family to help HER, as they scapegoat HER. It must be HER. Just do what your children ask, they say. Conform..what are you thinking??????? Bad MOM! All of these layers. Thanks SOOOO much for talking about this. It helps with the gaslighting. It helps with the brainwashing. It helps with understanding this damaging system. It helps to keep reaching, one more day. Even when I have tried to inform my female friends, just as you say, they shut down. One feels alone in this, as one is trying to deprogram. EVEN counselors rarely talk, if ever, about patriarchy/oppression/misogyny, "just say it nicer"..ugh. It is NOT how we say it, it is THAT we say it. Patriarchy requires we NOT say. Unless it is to be of service, agree, oppress. The isolation, like you talk about MAKES IT HARDER. Thank goodness for video's like yours!!! BRAVO for your courage, your strength AND for you three coming together FOR womyn, AS womyn, talking things out, to find solutions to equality, respect, regard, inclusion, MATTERING!
I’ve been betrayed more by women than I have men due to their enabling / codependent / envious behaviors surrounding men. And I know I’ve betrayed them too out of ignorance.
I loved this episode, listening to Lierre Keith anytime is great, she has intelligence, kindness and compassion. I'm glad she spoke of the contribution of the Indigenous women, that's rare. Equally, America owes much of its constitution more to the Iriquois (if I remember correctly) than the Romans. Given Benjamin Franklin's journals. But, I don't see how you truthfully get inspiration for a world for women, only for women from those cultures - since they balanced female and male. The women didn't dominate or put themselves over men. The major complaint many of the Native American 500 or so cultures, the Polynesians and others had with feminism and new agers, is that they never understood our cultures were *systems* - there weren't fundamental separate building blocks - but were patterns that depended on the whole system - and ALL parts of that system (female AND male included). That there were human ecosystems that overlaid and integrated into the natural ecosystem of that part of the world they were in. Our complaint (I was part of one of those indigenous movements to recover our history, language and culture) was that both the feminists and new agers would pick ideas or see this or that bit of an experience - mimic or copy, and use those bits to validate whatever was their theory of the day. Most of it was dressing, or branding, and was more like gender identity ideology - all appearance, not substance. And many of course set themselves up as authorities over the cultures they took from. And if the feminists were of an academic bent they had a tendency to have these classification systems that operated like the children's toy of a little table of square holes, for us round pegs to be banged into. Lierre I feel doesn't haven't anything of that disrespect we encountered. But I think that it was just a really different way of seeing the world. So I'm sceptical, for that reason and others. It would be interesting to read if there was a radfem history separate from our experiences of white feminism as it interacted with indigenous culture. Certainly stories of those women about what they personally took away from those experiences. Would be really interesting.
Dr. Carol Gilligan's work, helps us find a PATH out of this old system. Ethics of CARE is revered, rewarded etc. We need to start in homes, in childhood rearing and in our society that celebrates collaboration not competition. It is programming, we need to be looking at...or as Gloria Steinem would say de-programming..."unlearning".
State intervention is an important point. I'm thinking of the australian parental leave program which lead to a relatively lower pay gap between men and female.
you mean, the scapegoat is not women in general (as it was jews in general, for the nazis), but *some* women, those who other women let suffer male violence without helping them? that makes sense, but again it seems like a disanalogy between the two groups that would have been worth further discussion, right?! like maybe the comparison should be to disapora jews while there's a pogrom against some somewhere. i guess she did talk about israel airlifting the jewish ethiopians out, so maybe that's supposed to have sufficed to make that point - the jews have achieved universal solidarity while women have not.
@@hollylawford-smith Wow, I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think you're right: the analogy should be between diaspora Jews and, maybe, the Western/liberal feminist movement? But, yes, the analogy only goes so far, because, unlike them, our lack of solidarity is almost total... Wonderful discussion, thank you!
I think the barrier to feminist consciousness is rooted in heterorelationals between men and women. By heterorelationals im not exclusively referring to hetero _sexual_ relations but also any other relationship between men and women like familial and friendships. There is an emotional dependence and love that exists between woman and her oppressor (if were generalizing men and women as a collective) that does not exist between any other oppressed group and their oppressor. Women are raised by fathers, they have brothers, they have male friends and male l0vers. They can't fully raise a feminist consciousness without inditing those men and their participation in a patriarchal system.
I dont think that male behaviour being biological would mean we have no hope. Biologically rooted behaviours _can_ change. Firstly that's the entire root of evolution so the mere fact that we've evolved proves that it can happen since evolution happens both physically and behaviourally with the latter happening in a relatively shorter time frame. Secondly fields like psychology couldn't exist if behaviour rooted in biology and genetics couldn't change. Thats the standpoint of therapy
What annoys me is that men have solidarity amongst each other. They defend each other and put each other first even above their female partners. For men, women are secondary in many respects. It should be that women put each other first and men are secondary.
What is conspicuously missing from this discussion is that women love men and want to be with them, and it's not just socialisation, or rather it is a great factor in why women accept opression to various degrees. For the vast majority it is a more than an acceptable trade-off.
I don’t believe the United States as a culture and society have a sense of “we” as we do in Europe. Individualism (and for obvious historical reasons) is our genetic makeup. And this above all renders women in the United States incapable of experiencing themselves and other women as a class, let alone an oppressed class. Take a high earning professional woman, wife, mother who in many if not most cases still does the majority of the domestic labor. Being a wife and/or a mother are in my view socially sanctioned oppressive roles across socio-economic classes. The violence inherent in the workload of these roles is necessarily euphemized. Why? Because individual achievement - i.e. being a cog in the capitalist machinery is all people know. And I think this workload issue is a significant structural obstacle to women coming to a feminist consciousness.
this is a really good point - that women within more individualistic cultures will be even less likely to come to sex-based class consciousness, because they have to achieve class consciousness of _any kind_ first, not merely pivot from one group to another!
Many of the women who get into femimist movements had a large enough personal cost. An example would be maya forstator who got fired over the trens issue and even she may not have become an activist (on this particular issue) unless she was thrust into it.
Whats funny is that when mainstream people create stories about the world splitting into male and female colonies, they almost always have the womens colony being peaceful and wonderful and thr mens colony being terrible and violent. In reality if there was a woman only colony the male one would die out and the womans one wouldn't. There woild be women who joined the colony while they are pregnant (plus the womans colony may have sperm samples if that part of the world that women occupied had fertility clinics) so the womans side could continue to reproduce. The mens side however could not do that even if they had egg samples so the realistic conclusion of male and female colonies would be that the world population will plummet but the female colony would continue to survive and eventually become a mixed-s3x society.
Interesting to heat the womans land didnt work. There have been some successful separatist communities globally that were primarily comprised of damaged women but i think most of them catered to women who came from the same community or trine and that may have been a buffer against destructive behaviour.
Whilst I know that the speakers on this podcast don’t care for my views (as a male) I was drawn to it mainly because of Dworkins work. I find the views of the speakers (particularly Keith’s) in many ways fanciful, however I would not dispute how pornography has deviated the thinking of both male and female mindsets. The fact that there appears to be an increase in female paedophilia in Western societies illustrates that while (from a physical perspective) it is difficult for a female to overwhelm a man, the ability of an older woman to psychologically seduce and “rape” a minor is becoming more common. Male rape on females but more so the deviousness of sexual encounters between heterosexual couples has in my opinion undoubtedly been due to the rise of violent pornography. The choice of Keith to remain single and childless proves that in todays western society if a woman chooses to do this, she is perfectly entitled to do so and whatever the consequences of this are, the fact that a woman (gay or straight) can do this has to illustrate to some degree true female emancipation. As for the aspect of being financially independent in old age again, has to do with choices in your youth. Australia has a fairly robust superannuation system for both men and women so the two Australian speakers (as long as they remain at work) should be relatively financially independent in their retirement regardless of their marital status. There financial “reliance” on any male is superfluous due to this system but I do know that the States have a far less genuine system in place. The one final point I would make is that male on male rape is much higher than reported (prison, male children, unwilling to report due to shame) and there is a subset group of males who I would place in the psychopathy/narcissism range that prey, exploit and are violent to both men and women.
Yeah I was like "hmm maybe I've been thinking about this issue(feminism) wrong as a symptom of any society and maybe its more of a class difference like they were discussing. But then she said that "men are infiltrating the movement and you have to contend with (cis) women defending Trans women entering the movement." And I was immediate turned off, if you want to argue for cis women's separatism based on being born into a certain class fine. But in the same way someone who converts to Judaism can feel the genuine anti-semitism around them, a trans woman can also feel the class pain of being a woman. Unless I'm mistaken, and were not discussing this specific issue of how women are treated in a world of men but are instead implying that men's dominion over women precludes every part of a woman's identity, and women should desire to not be a women, cause it immediately puts one in an inferior class position. Implying that Trans women are not women and cannot experience womanhood because they chose to outwardly enter a marginalized class, implies that womanhood is inherently undesirable because of our oppression, ignoring the deep richness that comes from being a woman.
@@shainajoseph5040 "and women should desire to not be a women, cause it immediately puts one in an inferior class position. " _ this is very Monique Wittig. -" a lesbian is not a women" because the separatism the lesbian society creates the conditions for these deep riches to fully be expressed, absent of the male gaze, and the dominant forces of male socialization. In this sense the trans movement is the opposite of this. the male gaze is being re-affirmed within the camp of "women" vis a vis a stereotypical idea of women, thus reducing the potentiality of women to achieve this rich diversity on their own terms. and trans-woman can thru religious conversion experience the class pain of women, but it seems what is occurring more than anything is that this "class pain" is being re-territorialized as a narcissistic wound, a lack - contra freud, once again re-affirming that men have no ability to reproduce. Nature re-affirms its ontological commitment to the condition of what it means to be human. we are embodied animals, mortal and replete with consciousness. we can only reproduce as a dimorphic species The synthetic sex characteristics employed by AGP's are reification/dystopian/for alienation/increasing disconnect from ontological and biological reality. A de-territorialisation of the deep richness of women as mystery bearers, fabric makers, bearers of the childbirth and species reproduction. Cutting us loose from our moorings.............
I happened upon this video in my stream, and chose to listen to it because it had the word scapegoat and Feminism together (along with Andrea Dworkin, who I have been learning about LATE in my life, as it was not available to me before this time). I have come to understand womyn are the scapegoats of patriarchy. I have come to learn about "patriarchy" , again LATE in life. I knew something was deeply wrong , as no one was able to have a true relationship. I could see how something was 'wrong". I am deeply grateful to hear you womyn talking about what I have discovered, that womyn do not support each other. That most every womyn is living with the patriarch. This system programs the next generation and we do not have a "tribe" to help us make this shift to equality. It keeps getting splintered off, when we make any small progress. Stockholm syndrome is another thing I had come to see applies to womyn in relationships with men. It sucks your soul, your identity, your energy...and then when your own children grow, they also scapegoat mom's, require HER to be an object of service and if she dare speak up for herself, or speak up about how SHE is feeling or needs or wants...they are up in arms and basically blackmail her, with THEIR presence or the grandchildren's presence...to either conform , go back in the box or lose contact..until SHE does conform. AND no one helps HER , not even family, to help keep this connection. I know of many womyn that finally stood up for themselves and then their children ghost them. SHE is expendable!!! So she finally figures out the oppression, as her health declines over decades in patriarchy programming, finds her voice only for her beloved children to NOW do what the system (along with the mother's compliance to the system) taught them, and to oppress the MOM, just as she is healing. And no female friends or family to help HER, as they scapegoat HER. It must be HER. Just do what your children ask, they say. Conform..what are you thinking??????? Bad MOM! All of these layers. Thanks SOOOO much for talking about this. It helps with the gaslighting. It helps with the brainwashing. It helps with understanding this damaging system. It helps to keep reaching, one more day. Even when I have tried to inform my female friends, just as you say, they shut down. One feels alone in this, as one is trying to deprogram. EVEN counselors rarely talk, if ever, about patriarchy/oppression/misogyny, "just say it nicer"..ugh. It is NOT how we say it, it is THAT we say it. Patriarchy requires we NOT say. Unless it is to be of service, agree, oppress. The isolation, like you talk about MAKES IT HARDER. Thank goodness for video's like yours!!! BRAVO for your courage, your strength AND for you three coming together FOR womyn, AS womyn, talking things out, to find solutions to equality, respect, regard, inclusion, MATTERING!
this was way better than all of the podcasts the algorithm wants me to hear combined
I’ve been betrayed more by women than I have men due to their enabling / codependent / envious behaviors surrounding men. And I know I’ve betrayed them too out of ignorance.
I loved this episode, listening to Lierre Keith anytime is great, she has intelligence, kindness and compassion. I'm glad she spoke of the contribution of the Indigenous women, that's rare. Equally, America owes much of its constitution more to the Iriquois (if I remember correctly) than the Romans. Given Benjamin Franklin's journals.
But, I don't see how you truthfully get inspiration for a world for women, only for women from those cultures - since they balanced female and male. The women didn't dominate or put themselves over men. The major complaint many of the Native American 500 or so cultures, the Polynesians and others had with feminism and new agers, is that they never understood our cultures were *systems* - there weren't fundamental separate building blocks - but were patterns that depended on the whole system - and ALL parts of that system (female AND male included). That there were human ecosystems that overlaid and integrated into the natural ecosystem of that part of the world they were in. Our complaint (I was part of one of those indigenous movements to recover our history, language and culture) was that both the feminists and new agers would pick ideas or see this or that bit of an experience - mimic or copy, and use those bits to validate whatever was their theory of the day. Most of it was dressing, or branding, and was more like gender identity ideology - all appearance, not substance. And many of course set themselves up as authorities over the cultures they took from.
And if the feminists were of an academic bent they had a tendency to have these classification systems that operated like the children's toy of a little table of square holes, for us round pegs to be banged into. Lierre I feel doesn't haven't anything of that disrespect we encountered. But I think that it was just a really different way of seeing the world.
So I'm sceptical, for that reason and others. It would be interesting to read if there was a radfem history separate from our experiences of white feminism as it interacted with indigenous culture. Certainly stories of those women about what they personally took away from those experiences. Would be really interesting.
Love that you ladies are having these conversations! Great content that we need more of. 👏
❤🔥 thanks. what a great talk!
Yesssss!!!! Love you all! ❤️❤️❤️🍾
I loved 'The Gate to Women's Country'. I didn't see the plot twist coming either, and it was so incredibly satisfying.
Dr. Carol Gilligan's work, helps us find a PATH out of this old system. Ethics of CARE is revered, rewarded etc. We need to start in homes, in childhood rearing and in our society that celebrates collaboration not competition. It is programming, we need to be looking at...or as Gloria Steinem would say de-programming..."unlearning".
State intervention is an important point. I'm thinking of the australian parental leave program which lead to a relatively lower pay gap between men and female.
Yes! Precisely at 33:00, I think that's why the book is titled Scapegoat. Great discussion!
you mean, the scapegoat is not women in general (as it was jews in general, for the nazis), but *some* women, those who other women let suffer male violence without helping them? that makes sense, but again it seems like a disanalogy between the two groups that would have been worth further discussion, right?! like maybe the comparison should be to disapora jews while there's a pogrom against some somewhere. i guess she did talk about israel airlifting the jewish ethiopians out, so maybe that's supposed to have sufficed to make that point - the jews have achieved universal solidarity while women have not.
@@hollylawford-smith Wow, I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think you're right: the analogy should be between diaspora Jews and, maybe, the Western/liberal feminist movement? But, yes, the analogy only goes so far, because, unlike them, our lack of solidarity is almost total... Wonderful discussion, thank you!
you guys are angels
I think the barrier to feminist consciousness is rooted in heterorelationals between men and women. By heterorelationals im not exclusively referring to hetero _sexual_ relations but also any other relationship between men and women like familial and friendships.
There is an emotional dependence and love that exists between woman and her oppressor (if were generalizing men and women as a collective) that does not exist between any other oppressed group and their oppressor.
Women are raised by fathers, they have brothers, they have male friends and male l0vers.
They can't fully raise a feminist consciousness without inditing those men and their participation in a patriarchal system.
I dont think that male behaviour being biological would mean we have no hope. Biologically rooted behaviours _can_ change. Firstly that's the entire root of evolution so the mere fact that we've evolved proves that it can happen since evolution happens both physically and behaviourally with the latter happening in a relatively shorter time frame.
Secondly fields like psychology couldn't exist if behaviour rooted in biology and genetics couldn't change. Thats the standpoint of therapy
What annoys me is that men have solidarity amongst each other. They defend each other and put each other first even above their female partners.
For men, women are secondary in many respects.
It should be that women put each other first and men are secondary.
What is conspicuously missing from this discussion is that women love men and want to be with them, and it's not just socialisation, or rather it is a great factor in why women accept opression to various degrees. For the vast majority it is a more than an acceptable trade-off.
Every dysfunctional system has to have a scapegoat to keep "functioning". Healthy systems do not have scapegoats.
follow the politics of the Kurds. Rojava!!! only society on earth trying to say women should be political equal to men
I don’t believe the United States as a culture and society have a sense of “we” as we do in Europe. Individualism (and for obvious historical reasons) is our genetic makeup. And this above all renders women in the United States incapable of experiencing themselves and other women as a class, let alone an oppressed class.
Take a high earning professional woman, wife, mother who in many if not most cases still does the majority of the domestic labor. Being a wife and/or a mother are in my view socially sanctioned oppressive roles across socio-economic classes. The violence inherent in the workload of these roles is necessarily euphemized. Why? Because individual achievement - i.e. being a cog in the capitalist machinery is all people know.
And I think this workload issue is a significant structural obstacle to women coming to a feminist consciousness.
this is a really good point - that women within more individualistic cultures will be even less likely to come to sex-based class consciousness, because they have to achieve class consciousness of _any kind_ first, not merely pivot from one group to another!
Many of the women who get into femimist movements had a large enough personal cost. An example would be maya forstator who got fired over the trens issue and even she may not have become an activist (on this particular issue) unless she was thrust into it.
Whats funny is that when mainstream people create stories about the world splitting into male and female colonies, they almost always have the womens colony being peaceful and wonderful and thr mens colony being terrible and violent.
In reality if there was a woman only colony the male one would die out and the womans one wouldn't. There woild be women who joined the colony while they are pregnant (plus the womans colony may have sperm samples if that part of the world that women occupied had fertility clinics) so the womans side could continue to reproduce.
The mens side however could not do that even if they had egg samples so the realistic conclusion of male and female colonies would be that the world population will plummet but the female colony would continue to survive and eventually become a mixed-s3x society.
Interesting to heat the womans land didnt work. There have been some successful separatist communities globally that were primarily comprised of damaged women but i think most of them catered to women who came from the same community or trine and that may have been a buffer against destructive behaviour.
Whilst I know that the speakers on this podcast don’t care for my views (as a male) I was drawn to it mainly because of Dworkins work. I find the views of the speakers (particularly Keith’s) in many ways fanciful, however I would not dispute how pornography has deviated the thinking of both male and female mindsets. The fact that there appears to be an increase in female paedophilia in Western societies illustrates that while (from a physical perspective) it is difficult for a female to overwhelm a man, the ability of an older woman to psychologically seduce and “rape” a minor is becoming more common. Male rape on females but more so the deviousness of sexual encounters between heterosexual couples has in my opinion undoubtedly been due to the rise of violent pornography.
The choice of Keith to remain single and childless proves that in todays western society if a woman chooses to do this, she is perfectly entitled to do so and whatever the consequences of this are, the fact that a woman (gay or straight) can do this has to illustrate to some degree true female emancipation. As for the aspect of being financially independent in old age again, has to do with choices in your youth. Australia has a fairly robust superannuation system for both men and women so the two Australian speakers (as long as they remain at work) should be relatively financially independent in their retirement regardless of their marital status. There financial “reliance” on any male is superfluous due to this system but I do know that the States have a far less genuine system in place.
The one final point I would make is that male on male rape is much higher than reported (prison, male children, unwilling to report due to shame) and there is a subset group of males who I would place in the psychopathy/narcissism range that prey, exploit and are violent to both men and women.
Trans women are women
Yeah I was like "hmm maybe I've been thinking about this issue(feminism) wrong as a symptom of any society and maybe its more of a class difference like they were discussing. But then she said that "men are infiltrating the movement and you have to contend with (cis) women defending Trans women entering the movement." And I was immediate turned off, if you want to argue for cis women's separatism based on being born into a certain class fine. But in the same way someone who converts to Judaism can feel the genuine anti-semitism around them, a trans woman can also feel the class pain of being a woman.
Unless I'm mistaken, and were not discussing this specific issue of how women are treated in a world of men but are instead implying that men's dominion over women precludes every part of a woman's identity, and women should desire to not be a women, cause it immediately puts one in an inferior class position.
Implying that Trans women are not women and cannot experience womanhood because they chose to outwardly enter a marginalized class, implies that womanhood is inherently undesirable because of our oppression, ignoring the deep richness that comes from being a woman.
@@shainajoseph5040 "and women should desire to not be a women, cause it immediately puts one in an inferior class position. " _ this is very Monique Wittig. -" a lesbian is not a women"
because the separatism the lesbian society creates the conditions for these deep riches to fully be expressed, absent of the male gaze, and the dominant forces of male socialization.
In this sense the trans movement is the opposite of this. the male gaze is being re-affirmed within the camp of "women" vis a vis a stereotypical idea of women, thus reducing the potentiality of women to achieve this rich diversity on their own terms.
and trans-woman can thru religious conversion experience the class pain of women, but it seems what is occurring more than anything is that this "class pain" is being re-territorialized as a narcissistic wound, a lack - contra freud, once again re-affirming that men have no ability to reproduce.
Nature re-affirms its ontological commitment to the condition of what it means to be human. we are embodied animals, mortal and replete with consciousness. we can only reproduce as a dimorphic species
The synthetic sex characteristics employed by AGP's are reification/dystopian/for alienation/increasing disconnect from ontological and biological reality. A de-territorialisation of the deep richness of women as mystery bearers, fabric makers, bearers of the childbirth and species reproduction. Cutting us loose from our moorings.............